My initial post was going to be wordier, but I cut out a lot.
In other words, you're
appealing to nature. Why?
You determine something as morally wrong when it negatively affects the parties involved overall (slight over-simplification here.)
Sex doesn't have to be for reproduction, it can be for pleasure, as the hormones released makes one happy (I don't know the intricacies well.)
Yes the penis and the vagina have adapted to accommodate each other, increasing the likelihood of insemination and reproduction, but you're giving them a purpose, almost as if you're giving evolution a purpose (which is wrong.) With our sentience, we give ourselves purposes.
Oh, and just in case you'd like to know, I'm pretty sure dolphins also have sex for pleasure, so it isn't non-existent in the animal kingdom. This also means having sex for pleasure can be natural.
"right" isn't applicable at all here.
it's a "key part" to many people's lives, as they clearly like it, and include it into a basis in their relationships. What's wrong with that?
Having sex is also healthy for one's state of mind and probably body. It is a release mechanism, and makes one happier. It can also be a form of escapism, I presume, because of the chemicals released (again, I know not the intricacies here.)
If they want gratification over "security" by a long-term relationship, there's nothing wrong in doing that. Stop giving them a purpose and that's quite authoritarian, as it's like your saying that's what they should do, instead of giving them a choice.
Stop appealing to nature.Sex act? Sexual acts are a subcategory of sex or sexual behaviour, so isn't really relevant here. What exactly do you mean by that?
Or that person doesn't want to have a child yet, and that other person would have agreed with that? That's a tad narrow-minded.
They don't want to have a child, perhaps
(there are numerous reasons for not wanting them)
not that they don't want each other's genes to "mix",
as if there's repulsion to the concept.
But I'm sure they find sex is better, so wouldn't substitute it for less.
And enacting out fantasies can be better in a different way.
Mutual masturbation or sex would feel in all likelihood far better than by itself.
People also find sex unifying and emotional.
Stop appealing to nature.Stop appealing to nature and don't bring something entirely irrelevant into it on that flawed premise that we should listen to nature, or what is natural
.But by your logic, are we not lessening reproduction? Are we not (deliberately) diverting away from it? That sounds almost as bad.
Yet many people still would like to have it, so you can't exclude them from this from an individual basis/experience.
You're giving them a purpose, and being like-authoritarian again. Also, in long-term relationships, it can be unifying and emotional for people. And they just want to prioritise it in life, or make it a basis, there's nothing wrong with that.
That's no sex at all then
and again,
stop appealing to nature.Perhaps it's time to consider other views? Not saying you should, just to reflect and ponder other things also.
So? It's their choice to have sex, and there's nothing wrong with that. it doesn't harm anybody, and it's clearly an enjoyable pastime
Something entirely irrelevant.
How is the vanity always applicable?
Where's the futility if it's enjoyable?
Why are you giving it a resolution? Where's the resolution to it?
But they're not babies yet, are they? Don't be silly. Why should non-existent things, non-existent in the fabrics of reality, take a priority?
Because they might eventually want to have children, for the experience or what not, and they no longer want to have the ceaseless sex, and settle down.
This has annoyed me.
That's incredibly narrow-minded, and offensive, and I'll be offended on behalf of everyone else too.
Because they don't? They prevent (unwanted) children, and they can still gain the pleasure from it.
Yes, you probably are missing out.
Perhaps reconsider your views, as said earlier. Don't have to, just evaluate different ones and see if yours change.
The logic is flawed there.
Wouldn't it be?
"That's the problem, more sex ed → more contraception → less abortions."